Flicking through Paul Handley’s The King Never Smiles: A Biography of Thailand’s Bhumibol Adulyadej earlier today, this retro-extract jumped out at me. I hope New Mandala readers find it as interesting as I did. The extract in question comes from page 370 and describes an episode from 1995.
The [Banharn Silpa-archa] government proved as bad as anyone expected. The deputy prime ministers, Samak [Sundaravej] and Thaksin [Shinawatra], fought openly for control of the capital and its traffic problems. After three weeks of bickering, Bhumibol let loose, ridiculing the two ministers for achieving nothing on traffic. “Between these two sides there is only talk, talk, talk, and they argue, argue, argue.” The stunning rebuke filled the headlines in every newspaper. For several days Thaksin, Samak, and Banharn leaped about frantically to display contrition. Banharn declared he would heed the king and coordinate the two ministers. Samak and Thaksin pledged to work together, even while denying they had not. Four days later they met the king for several hours, poring over city maps and details of problem zones. “We had never thought about what the king had recommended,” Thaksin said humbly.
Bhumibol had again exposed politicians as incompetent and unconcerned for the people.
23 responses so far ↓
1 nganadeeleg // Sep 1, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Nick: There is no need for the King to get involved this time – This current matter can easily be solved by the government as per my simple proposal outlined here: http://www.nganadeeleg.blogspot.com/
I am still waiting to be told why such a proposal would not work, and am increasingly of the view that Samak & Co are not really interested in solving the problem, and would rather have a winner take all outcome.
(which IMO would only be a temporary victory anyway, as the underlying problems will still be there)
We all know the PAD are unreasonable in their demands for the government to resign, but maybe it’s time to ask is the government reasonable in it’s attempts to end the crisis?
2 Dog Lover // Sep 2, 2008 at 3:57 am
Re the proposal: “A reasonable compromise would be for PAD to withdraw the resignation demand, and Samak & PPP to back away from the constitutional amendment rush.”
Reasonable, yes, and Samak has shown a willingness to do his share of the compromise but PAD have said that if they go home, they have lost. So the issue is how to get PAD to go home (oops, sorry Michael Connors).
3 nganadeeleg // Sep 2, 2008 at 8:33 am
So the issue is how to get PAD to go home
IF Samak had truly compromised, then tear gas and water cannons would be justified in getting the the PAD to go home.
4 Dog Lover // Sep 2, 2008 at 8:43 am
nganadeeleg : a compromise has two sides to it. Samak has clearly backed down a number of times. He has ranted and then backed down. He has offered a number of options on constitutional change (at least he talked about options). He allowed ministers to be pushed aside. He got rid of Chalerm. What has been PAD’s contribution to compromise? Haven’t they refused all compromises and demanded just one outcome? And that is their victory?
5 nganadeeleg // Sep 2, 2008 at 10:56 am
Dog Lover: Obviously you and I have different opinions on what compromise is, and also what competent government is.
I have shown a simple & reasonable solution that would enable dispersal of the protesters.
If the government followed my proposal they would have no problem justifying the use of appropriate force, they would still be in power, the constitution could still be amended (but in a consultative manner), and PAD would be sidelined if they did not come to the party.
Is the government interested in governing well, or do they have another agenda?
6 Dog Lover // Sep 2, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Sorry, I thought you were sticking out for “A reasonable compromise would be for PAD to withdraw the resignation demand.” My comment is on that. Your blog then suggests something which has no element of compromise. That is, that the govt do all the right things – that would be nice – and PAD keeps doing what it is doing until reason prevails based on the results of the govt’s decisions on PAD demands. And then Goldilocks tried the small bed and found it just right.
7 nganadeeleg // Sep 2, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Dog Lover: No need to be facetious/sarcastic – I have said many times that the PAD leaders have been unreasonable – that still did not stop the government from being competent & reasonable, so that the dispersal by force would have been warranted, justified, acceptable & defendable to all but the most radical elements (who will never be able to be satisfied anyway).
Notice that I have used the past tense, because now that a state of emergency has been declared all bets are off – it’s a pity it had to get to this stage, but once those reds got involved it’s fairly predictible what would happen.
btw, It’s also a pity that the PAD leaders did not use the declaration of the state of emergency as an opportune time to call it quits for now – IMO that was a big mistake, as I doubt very much there will be a coup.
That’s probably one good thing about the last military coup – it didn’t solve anything, so hopefully we’ve seen the last of them and they should be off the table from now on (in my Goldilocks dream?)
8 nganadeeleg // Sep 3, 2008 at 9:15 am
Neither side seems able to reflect on the bigger picure in a non partisan way (and IMO that includes most media & academics).
The point scoring continues, but where are the constructive proposals – even on this supposedly ‘academic’ blog it rarely moves beyond:
‘Samak must resign, he is a proxy of Thaksin’
‘Samak was elected, you cannot disenfranchise the voters’
‘Reds started it’ or ‘Yellows started it’
etc etc
Those who have already picked sides (a long time ago) don’t seem to be able to offer anything new, so IMO, it’s time for ’song mai ow’ type thinkers to start proposing solutions that take into account the reasonable concerns of both sides so that things can start to move forward.
Or is everyone just waiting for the King to sort it out, again?
(or even worse, are they willing spectators/cheerleaders at the Coliseum of Thailand?)
9 Ed Norton // Sep 3, 2008 at 12:17 pm
You raise an excellent question/s. I am not answering directly, but thinking out loud and being deeply pessimistic about Thailand. I will get to the question. Maybe compromise is one of the things that holds Thailand back (at least that seems to be the view of the PAD leaders). Is it is at this moment that violence clears away the mess…. I know, we are all supposed to be non-violent and opposed to force, but violence is sometimes a way forward. One things of civil wars and revolutions such as the English Revolution, French Revolution and so on. The problem is that it can also lead into a chasm of destruction and bloody murder and mayhem.
To go more to the question nganadeeleg raises, and being more optimistic, I really think that PAD has to stand down. That way they maintain the potential to bring people out again. If they go for broke now, they risk a total loss. If the government stays, the EC has given the anti-PPP lot a way forward that is using the new judicial force. Of course, PPP people will see this as another example of the elite ganging up against them, but it buys everyone some time and cools things off for a while. And it preserves parliament.
But it also puts off the big issues – Thaksin (and he seems cashed up again!), monarchy), form of representation. But they are probably better dealt with through some kind of independent inquiry into the events of the PAD rebellion.
I’m trying, I really am….
10 nganadeeleg // Sep 3, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I agree with you, Ed Norton, that the PAD should stand down, however to date they have shown no sign of doing so.
We need to ask why has the government has been hamstrung in this dispute, when they should have been able to take the high ground.
People can go on all they like about history & ‘other forces’ at play etc etc, but the fact is those forces can be negated IF the government simply acts competently and reasonably.
(just like the 2006 coup would never have been possible if Thaksin had moderated his greed and desire to avoid taxes)
All the government needs to do is get a list of all the PAD grievances.
If they cannot get it from the PAD, they just need to go back to the press releases, or just check the Manager site
Government media people need to respond to each of the grievances in a proper fashion – most can easily be dismissed, with proper explanations to satisfy all but the most pig headed.
(I suggest if he wants to make himself useful, Jakrapob should be doing this instead of pushing the spin to foreigners)
The one grievance that cannot be easily dismissed without the government appearing arrogant and having an ulterior motive, is the constitutional amendment.
On that matter the government needs to put their best minds at work to come up with a more consultative process, which has the best interests of the country at heart – that should not be difficult to do (unless they dont really want to put the interests of the country first!)
Publicise all of the above widely on TV and radio (including to the PAD rank & file – make letter drops into the protest site if they have to!), give appropriate explanations, set a reasonable deadline for dispersal, follow all legal procedures required, warn people that tear gas might be used and that children should to be evacuated for their own safety etc.
Follow through with the dispersal using minimun force and good planning.
If it goes wrong, they still have the high ground, and have done everything right and have been seen to have tried their hardest to reslove it peacefully.
There’s an abundance of bluster, arrogance, pig headedness, scheming etc, but what’s missing are:
Logic, common sense, competency, reasonableness, compassion.
11 Ed Norton // Sep 3, 2008 at 11:17 pm
From today’s Irrawaddy: “The PAD will not hold talks with the government or anyone,” said Somsak Kosaisuk, one of the five core leaders of the group. “The PAD will talk only after Samak has resigned,” he said.”
12 nganadeeleg // Sep 4, 2008 at 8:55 am
Ed, I think you (like many others) have missed the point of my posts:
- The government could have nipped the current protest in the bud if only they had acted competently & reasonably (irrespective of whether the PAD leadership co-operated or not)
13 Ed Norton // Sep 4, 2008 at 10:24 am
I was just going back to the idea of compromise and the generally accepted position that compromises are two-sided bargains.
14 nganadeeleg // Sep 4, 2008 at 10:54 am
Perhaps ‘compromise’ was the wrong word (if I used it) – this crisis has been brewing for a long time and it was never likely that a bargain could be reached.
If the PPP coalition government had been less intractable in their self serving pursuits the PAD would have been sidelined a long time ago, and the country might finally be on its way to a functioning democracy.
To those who solely blame the PAD for this mess: Say all you like about PAD being unreasonable/fascists/supported by third forces or whatever, but the fact is:- Good governments rarely get overthrown.
15 Ed Norton // Sep 4, 2008 at 11:52 am
Better go back and have a look at your own blog where compromise is highlighted. By the way, in countries that practice democratic representation, bad governments rarely get overthrown
16 nganadeeleg // Sep 4, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Ed: I am happy to stand by my comments & posts on this matter
- and you can continue with the partisan approach if you like
To help you comprehend how the PPP coalition government has failed in the test of competency, I herewith highlight a few different sections on my original blog post:
“It seems no one wants to lose face, and that is what’s stopping the political compromise.
PAD demanding the government resign is a ludicrous situation, but at the same time Samak and PPP have shown no sign of backing off the constitutional amendment/PPP/Thaksin exoneration strategy – what will be the end result?
Once the violence starts it will be hard to stop, and even if it is crushed for now, it will remain bubbling away for ages.
A reasonable compromise would be for PAD to withdraw the resignation demand, and Samak & PPP to back away from the constitutional amendment rush, and let the matter be debated in parliament and come up with proposed amendments which they agree are to be put to a public referendum after a reasonable consultative period.
Even if PAD do not moderate their demands, Samak and the PPP need to act in a competent and reasonable manner, which I think means they should do the following:
- Address all of the PAD concerns in a reasonable manner.
- Dismiss (with proper explanation) those demands that are unreasonable and outlandish.
- Agree that the constitutional amendment process be a consultative process with parliamentary debate, followed by a public referendum.
- Undertake a public education program outlining how they have addressed the legitimate concerns of the PAD, and also outline how the unreasonable demands are bad for democracy.
- Once the above has been done, the PPP should set a deadline for the PAD protesters to disperse, and if the PAD protesters still fail to disperse then the deadline should be enforced with appropriate/reasonable force (such as tear gas & water cannons).
Simply dismissing the PAD as an unlawful mob and falling back on its own electoral legitimacy is not good enough and in my opinion is poor governance.
It is up to the government to act in a competent and reasonable manner, even if the PAD leadership wont! ”
btw, I have been trying to be constructive and am somewhat dismayed at the failure of many of the other regular here to do the same (on both sides)
If it’s all about point scoring then hows this:
- I am now not so sure the PPP government is merely incompetent, and instead increasingly think they have no concern for real democracy, and are intractably self serving.
As quick supporting evidence I tender the fact that they have not even been prepared to be more consultative on the constitutional amendment process.
Further, it seems to me that PPP members have not merely supported and shown empathy for the red thugs, they (some) have actively led them into battle.
17 Ed Norton // Sep 4, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Partisan? me? Pots and kettles I think. You might recall that I tried (see above). Anyway, I wasn’t criticising you, just drawing you back to your use of the term and the original point.
18 Ed Norton // Sep 4, 2008 at 11:38 pm
And I forgot to ask: is suggesting a referendum an attempt to compromise?
19 nganadeeleg // Sep 5, 2008 at 8:56 am
Ed: IMO, the referendum (with questions as suggested by PPP) is certainly no compromise, and is just more of the same (intractable, self serving, disingenuous, incompetent?)
See my ‘blog’ for some alternative referendum questions that I quickly thought of when I heard Samak had proposed a referendum.
http://www.nganadeeleg.blogspot.com
I’v just thought of another one:
What percentage of the parliament do you think should be elected?
A. 100%
B. 50%
C. 30%
As for the partisan comment, I did not mean to single you out, and was referring more to my dismay that partisanship continued to be the order of the day, even on this ‘academic’ blog.
btw, I hope you don’t mind me addressing you as Ed, instead of by a more formal title.
Hobby
20 Ed Norton // Sep 5, 2008 at 11:46 am
You may call me Mr. Norton. Your note on partisanship was the reason for my pots and kettles comment. Personally, I am not in favour of referenda for the kinds of nuanced and even disingenuous questions being proposed – and I mean by all sides, including your good self. This is simply grasping at straws, looking for a way to “solve” political dilemmas that are unlikely to be resolved by such an exercise. A referendum is a very blunt instrument indeed. Think of the junta’s referendum: do you agree with the constitution or not? For such a huge document, this is a sad question, merely seeking a justification for what they had done. You could see most of the current proposals in the same light. But, at least it was an offer of one way forward/out.
21 nganadeeleg // Sep 5, 2008 at 2:03 pm
“But, at least it was an offer of one way forward/out”.
If the reports are accurate regarding the proposed referendum question, then I’ve get serious doubts the PPP can solve anything!
(If that’s the best they can come up with, what hope is there?)
Mr Norton it is from now on, and my apologies for being so presumptuous.
22 Ed Norton // Sep 5, 2008 at 11:16 pm
nganadeeleg: I realize that this is a two-person conversation, but the idea of compromise and ways out seems worthy of discussion away from the din of other threads on the crisis. It seems an attempt at some kind of compromise or at least a reaching out from parliament is being made: http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=130416. What do you think?
At the same breaking news site, senators seem to have other suggestions that, frankly, seems dumb: if PAD doesn’t agree on solving the crisis, then there must be an election. That is a blank check for street mobs of all political shades.
23 nganadeeleg // Sep 6, 2008 at 9:19 am
Mr Norton: Re: The proposed mediation – it’s about time someone stood back and looked at a way to find some common ground so that things can move forward.
That does not mean giving in to unreasonable demands, but rather coming up with reasonable proposals that neither side can back away from easily for fear of being seen as unreasonably unreasonable themselves.
Therefore I welcome the move if it is done in that spirit.
However, I still think the government could have already solved the crisis if they had made more effort to be seen to be reasonable, instead of merely painting the PAD as unreasonable.
We all know the PAD has been unreasonable, however whether the government has been reasonable, or not, is still subject to considerable dispute.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.